Skip to main content

About your Search

20130101
20130131
STATION
SFGTV 74
LANGUAGE
English 74
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 74 (some duplicates have been removed)
, antonini, here, moore, here, sugaya, here. commissioners, first on your calendar consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1 at # 369 third avenue is proposed for continuance to january 24, 2013. item 2, case 2011-at 480 potrero avenue to march 21, 2013. on your calendar, under your regular calendar, 16,(a), b,(a) c for 2011-.00av and x there a request for a continuance. specific so you may want to consider that as well. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items, plus the third that was just added? potentially. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, i'm jim ruben. i'm here on the item where there's been a request for a continuance from supervisor kim's office. i was advised of that request yesterday directly from her office. i talked to a number of people, including some of you. we are not opposed to a continuance. we would like us to talk to some groups that have been identified late yesterday afternoon and we will do that. i'd like a short continuance as the calendar can provide for us but we're agreeable. a couple of weeks woul
. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. there is nothing further, commissioners, on this calendar. you may adjourn. >> do we need a motion to adjourn this? >> no. >> commission is going to take about a five-minute break here and we'll come back with the regular calendar. >>please stand by; meeting in recess thursday, january 10th, 2013. please be advised that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you're speaking on the agendized item, please fill out a speaker card and when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone and please state your name for the record. those of you standing near the door i'm going to have to ask you to stand on the other side for fire safety reasons. at this time i'd like to take roll. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice pr
: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment portion is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to put to the record that this is a mandatory discretionary review, and the issues, which the residential design team has addressed are those typically addressed in a mandatory discretionary review. i want to say that i think the review is extremely thorough, creative, and supportive of those ideas that are important to us as a commission. i want to comment taking it down from the top, the 15 foot setback from the street is something which this commission has asked the department to consistently implement. it's not 11 feet. it's not 12 feet. it's 15 feet where it occurs on the street side of a property which is larger than two stories, because this particular setback should not be seen from the front. so it's really not an issue to question, but just to accept because this commission has used this rule and over the years had the department strong implement the same 15 feet wherever that type of condition occurs. on the second one, regarding the garage door, that is als
. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> i think the proposed alterations are very much in line with style being understated, california shingles style. i think it's very appropriate to do the expansion on top. only thing i would ask have we thought up bird friendly footing or what might be required since we're so close to the ocean? >> thanks commissioner moore. it's the plans don't already show the bird friendly glass, we'll make sure they do. they will need to by code. >> because you're in a area that requires that anyway is that correct? >> believe so. >> you would pay attention to that, i appreciate that. >> correct. >> thank you, >> commissioner on the motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. commissioner antonini, borden, moore, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. places you under public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> happy new year to everyone. today is my first day back at city hall. i didn't see the agenda. i'm on way to human rights commission. let me state the purpose i'm here for. because of our pass supervisor, kristina, she last month or so, she request
of this commission to the board of supervisors. >> second. >> commissioner moore did you have another comment? >> yes. talk about general plan compliance as well. >> just one final comment. i think it's also important i think for the commission that this is the first time that we've considered a historic district under the new historic preservation ordinance and i think it's also the first one the historic preservation commission has respected to the board of supervisors, so this say first for a couple of things. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> continue on that. it's the first time that it was in all of the market octavia plan and this subject came up for years and years and consistently repeated recommendations and comments by the community that we are supporting the nomination as described by commissioner sugaya and his motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> and i also want to thank the historic preservation commission and the staff for preparing the draft for duboce park landmark district designation went which is wonderful history to read and you learn a lot of things about san fr
. thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to commend the architect for submitting the supplemental information and about the mapping and careful and put it into context. it's very interesting to me particularly leaving the building beyond and marking the corner on mission and tenth and lower building and help with the transition, not only on mission but respecting the adjacentacy of the kres cant. i think your spainz was extremely good and what i would like to recommend to the department make it besides from the specific of the design something we would be asking pretty much everybody else who comes forward with new buildings in downtown. i am very comfortable with the building. i only have one funny question if you allow me. in your drawings the elevations you have tiny red lines tracing through the elevations. is that a ink mistake or -- (inaudible). >> we're trying to relate that to the proportions of the next door buildings. >> oh. i was just curious. tiny little lines. >> right. so if you see on the mission street elevation to the west we have more elongated windows an
. >> president fong: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: excuse me, i hear you say, besides i think you're making a great pretion, it seems you're really understanding how this all comes together. you made more money than you spent is that correct? >> we're projecting we will take in more money than originally anticipated. >> commissioner moore: that's great. now you're asking because you will be making more money, to be allowed to spend some of that money on your own in order to stay on the course of making the money. >> we are requesting the authority to accept that additional money, that is not currently in our budget, and to be able to spend it. >> commissioner moore: so if you wouldn't be asking for the supplemental appropriation, and you would make the money, would that just automatically disappear? would it go #] somewhere, where somebody makes the money and doesn't give it back to you? >> so the way the budget process works is you have cash that comes in the door, but you have to have budget appropriation. so we have excess cash that's above and beyond what we assumed in the bud
moore. >> commissioner moore: could you perhaps, on page 5, under division program -- work program administrative division, explain to me why there is a drop in personnel assigned to the commissions. you're going from four in 2013, to three in 14-15. >> commissioner, last -- in the current fiscal year, when we found out that linda was going to retire, we had -- we double budgeted that position. there was a second position in there that was 0923, manager two for those of you on the recruitment committee which is a topic of discussion. so there was a two and a four in there. and so this now reflects, with linda's retirement, the other position going away, and the staffing level going back to three. >> commissioner moore: thank you. appreciate that. for the director, and it's not as much budget, you mentioned -- do you see expression master plans for public owned sites, would you give us an example. that's kind of scary, actually. >> yeah, that word is probably not correct terminology. i apologize. the idea as i mentioned earlier we're working on these very large sites with public age
units. >> okay, commissioner moore. >> i'm sorry, i should have taken my name off. >> commissioner wu. >> just to add one last thought on this conversation is that there is a policy difference here, which is that moh has to finance these units. so, in the example where the developer builds bmrs, the units come ready, however you want to say it. but the city is taking on more of the burden. i really agree we have to make sure it's economically correct. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner antonini. >> well, on this issue of off-site land dedication, for years we've had a lot of affordable housing activists who have come forward and said, we really want this, particularly in the mission district. so, it's been created and it seems like the wrong forum, although it's worthy of discussion. this is not the time. when the policy is being formulated and approved, that's when the discussion should come forward and make sure it works out equitably and these are all valid comments since they're not being built right now, but itself a trade-off. again this is probably one of the reasons the proj
>> commissioner borderon. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously and places you have item 14 at 2895 san bruno avenue. where f -- request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon members of the planning commission. the project at 2895 san bruno avenue proposes to demolish the gas station and construct a new development of mix used buildings total of 10 dwellings units and retail spaces and second floor business professional service uses. the building will contain approximately 14,000 square feet and 40 feet in height. there have been a number of modifications to the project since publication of the materials. however these changes were interior. it doesn't affect the facade or the footprint of the parks spaces have increased from 10 to 15 and to address the neighborhood's concern about lack of parking and this change is interior again and not affect the facade or building envelope and bike spaces have increased also and interior and will not affect the exterior or
. >> commissioner moore. >> we will see if the public has any other items. >> we are calling them together. >> so the motion includes nine, 10, and 11. >> second. >> great. thank you. >> on that motion to approve items nine, 10 and 11 commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes commissioners unanimously five to zero. >> next item. >> commissioners that places you on item 12 at 2121 19th avenue. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am mitchiel planning staff and this is located at 2121 19th avenue and between quintara and rivera street. it's a request for conditional use permit. through at&t this facility is the regular cellular antenna facility that we see most often and antennas on the roof top and equipment within ground floor area and location preference seven site because it's residential two and the height limit is 40 feets. just a few things to add in 1997 sprint was approved for a project at the site which they were approved for antennas on a very simila
. >> commissioner moore. >> i like to ask the architect to explain to me the ground floor of fence enclosure of why any how? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat that commissioner moore? >> the fence on the ground floor. you having a fence here? >> it is existing, and it's proposed that it would be maintained. there hasn't been any expression by my clients or the neighbors that it go away or lower. >> i am just wondering as to whether or not and more informal garden like that kind of deals with playing with the garden as it helps with the side yards setbacks and planting wouldn't allow this building to look more -- less imposing but more generous to maintaining the collective impression of the mid-block open space. i personally don't find the ground and intrusion into the midblock open space or the fence partially and it staggered and holds back from the adjoining building to the east. we have to remember that the building is -- the grarden is north facing. it is a north facing building which means the sun, the southern sun, the eastern sun, is fully affecting all units impacted by this addition, bu
something that some of us are looking for. >> commissioner moore. >> both comments by commissioner suguya and commissioner wu are spot-on. it is something that none of us have experienced. however, the guidance given to us and the interpretation to us by the zoning administrator that this should follow the typical timeframes by which projects come back is what indeed i feel comfortable supporting because that is by the rules that we work and that is what the public is expecting. i would suggest that it is indeed changed and movement on the project. however, until the process has been fully worked out with the neighborhood regarding all of the issues that were briefly touched on by the people presenting, it's time to do it right this time. as we always said, every project has neighborhood support and the department's guidance has indeed created that and we're agreeing with it, then the project should hopefully be on successful way for approval. >> commissioner suguya, do you have another comment? >> i did. to the zoning administrator, interpretation of the planning code language that a
's a motion. >> second. >> >> commissioner moore. >> i have been looking for the unit sizes, what they are now and what they would be when they're merged. the other thing i would like to ask, and that is a question for mr. crawford why isn't there a architect or engineer on the drawings which is typical for submittals? >> i believe mr. kaplan is the architect on this project. his name is on the application and on the plans. >> didn't he say he's not an architect. >> that's what he said. >> so there is no name of an architect or an engineer on this drawing. >> i will let mr. kaplan speak to that, but in the meantime -- well, it looks like it's -- the building is 1966 square feet. the units are divided fairly equally between the upper and lower floor so around a thousand square feet piece. >> and we have the total square footage. >> yeah, you will have a 2,000 square foot and i will let mr. kaplan speak about the architect. >> yeah, on the matter of the architect. my understanding of the code is the property owner is allowed to design the property if the structure is under 25 feet which this
moore. >> i feel i need - in addition, not fact that the restaurant does not have any opening in the back you'll need some vent levitation. i don't know what exactly to solve the issues here >> commissioner. >> i don't know bringing it back seems to effect just the restaurant part. and the upper level gains deck. the larger backyard i guess is what happens. but it seems like a minor you change. if we were to stick with the windows in the backyard were not operational, would that work >> except we'd have to have cleaning people be able to get back there. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah. i think what is issue that i sort of think of is there's no looikt in the back but there's restaurants that don't have lights in the back by they're open in the day. i'm for - i just want to make sure we don't have the additional noise in the back with addition to the restaurant noise there already. >> commissioners you do have a motion in the second that's on the floor. >> commissioner. >> i would say that even if we're requesting the windows to be fixed i will have to have significant
on this? >> i will be speaking on behalf of officer tobe moore. >> and before you do. let me officially call the items they are two separate items. let's go back to 6 e, malik aslam dba jack in the box, 4649 geary, extended hours permit amply indication. application. >> it is located at geary and 11th avenue. this issue, this location came before the commission on january 24th, 2012. and then, after a process that involved a lot of community groups, the supervisor's office, residents, sfpd and the owner of the commission, granted an extended hours and permit with conditions. one condition approved operating hours between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.. but not after 4:00 or before 6:00. now after a year of operation, the operator has returned to ask full permission to operate between 4 and 6. operation at those hours will allow the venue to serve breakfast and i will let sfpd and the applicant take it from here. >> thank you. >> welcome. >> good evening commissioners. >> my name is art briden and i am here on behalf of mr. can who is the franchisee. >> the reason that we are requesting the hours is
. thank you. it lookses like a good project. >> commissioner moore. >>i think the restrictions to going into different uses [inaudible] and architect explained and i am comfortable moving this. >> commissioner hillis. >> i agree and i like the fact that we don't normally see second floor uses for office and we have dental offices where there is not a lot of retail. >> it's an active use. >> commissioner wu. >> could i just ask a question about the bmr unit. i see a two bedroom unit and one bedroom unit allocated for bmr's and the decision will be made later for rental or ownership according to the project sponsor. >> correct. >> thank you. and bmr's are they slated to be in the same building or different building? >> there are one requirement and the sponsor has that as a three bedroom unit. >> commissioner wu if i could clarify under the housing legislation 20% reduction triggers reduction of two to one and right now one unit because of prop c, correct, so there is only one affordable unit. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to approve with condition
, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two item
but i will see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >>i would like the commissioners to look at the parcel map to see that the dr requesters map is south from the proposed subject property. the reason i am saying this is it's about views and not light but about views and as much as i like to protect it the house in front of us today has made concessions that comes out of the san francisco neighborhood discussions [inaudible] portolla drive and you have stately homes and setback from the street and individually designed homes on large lots speak for themselves, kind of stately neighborhood . the fact that the proposed building primarily has relatively low ceiling heights for this building type is already a major concession to keeping the building not too imposing or impacting on adjoining properties and i assume they had the dr request's house in mind also. we also have the additional lot 37 where someone else in the future might be building. what i can tell it's a buildable lot. that's not part of the discussion here. i myself would agree with th
as 5 for that matter >> commissioner moore. >> i'm happy to continue. >> i have to admit i am reluctant to go forward because the burden is on us. i believe that a project of this size it's a question of principle should have many commissioners present because we have the largest number of opinions on the subject manner >> commissioner anthony and in that regards to that question that the certification of an e i r which would be brother us in those important projects we need more votes so it's more important practically is 10 years that have gone into this project. i think it's only fair to the project sponsors and i'm prepared to vote on it today and hear it today but i think there is a sentiment it should be continued because it's a very important project. we need a larger commission to go forward with this. commissioner borden >> here's what i'm not - i mean members of the public probably don't know we're not allowed to speak outside this quorum. peope want. i don't think we're clear on that. now by letting the audience know on the one hand on moving forward on this item
to hear what the rest of the commission has to said. >> commissioner moore. >> before i get into my comments on the specifics of the project, i would like to acknowledge my support for commissioner wu's concerns about the trade-off between on-site and off-site in this particular case, very well phrased, has a very important policy question with the hope we will continue discussion with the [speaker not understood] and among ourselves. we do all want to avoid the overconcentration of affordability within one area as well. so, i think it's a very subtle question. what is the proper balance. two comments on the project. it's amazing that we're starting the year, the new year, with such a powerful project. i think it's very, very strong because this project has been around forever with all of its trials and tribulations, the ups and downs, the downs and the glimmers of hope of it can you having back and not coming back. that aside, i want to acknowledge the public on an extremely sensitive and well thoughts common to basically cover the whole spectrum of what the commission likes and ne
the minutes and. >> commissioner moore and i and commissioner chair wu. >> it passes. >> commissioner anthony. >> yeah. a few items in regards it the secretary subcommittee we met yesterday and we'll be meeting again next wednesday and we're having 0 some input on a few areas. we have a substance material expert who is analysising these >> and what that step is finished and the subcommittee has approved some of it we will begin to post the job position and it will be posted for thirty to 35 days. i would like to ask that it be calendared. >> sounds like a good idea. >> and i have a couple of other comments. article in today's chronicle >> areas in the sunset this deals with a number of houses where the lawns or great areas in front of the houses have been pasted over because the owners don't want to put the effort into maintaining them. this is not allowed and they did make references to this. we didn't have the funding to release this but i will support or at least identify some of violations of the home owners. but there have been a number of these that have been eliminates. i
else. >> we're going seeking beer and wine in a restaurant. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm generally concerned that the budging out of the property line is an issue. when you change the residential area from residential into an in city that at the time it was done has implication because you've got home - you could potentially go all the way out to the property line with or without that line is no effect to me. if you're joining both properties to the north i would significant that we find a line by which the restaurant and the commission indeed wants to support find a sense of expansion so we could still have a residential building. but if you have - we're not looking at what building type we're trying to ending large so i would like to take a slightly more tighter look at the restaurant and i'm not even sure in 10 or 11 feet is the right li line. and then where the stair ends doesn't scombern me >> i'm supporting the country club by i want to ask the staff does the stairwell require outside space. >> the second floor rear deck it is divided into two portions the rear portion is
a decision as well as 5 for that matter >> commissioner moore. >> i'm happy to continue. >> i have to admit i am reluctant to go forward because the burden is on us. i believe that a project of this size it's a question of principle should have many commissioners present because we have the largest number of opinions on the subject manner >> commissioner anthony and in that regards to that question
moore. >> commissioner moore: it's difficult to get into this discussion without expressing appreciation for the effort, but i do think that many of the comments made by the public, somewhat reflect my own concerns. most and foremost i believe the words of planning department charter has to be changed. san francisco is the only city in california, is the only city and county which is a chartered city. just very unusual. in california that is i think -- legal reference. for this i think is an ideal statement, a manifesto of creed or of basic values in its application and presented to the public and the commission -- personally generic. and while i agree with many of the values expressed of how we conduct ourselves personally and professionally with respect to trust and consistency and those things there need to be references to what informs us in our actions relative to those values. and i would agree with ms. hestor with public records policies, the chartbo) rĂ· itsel, charter amendments, the rules, and plan regulations that govern planning need to be referenced as a daily part of refere
on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is remarkably exciting, particularly having it presented. to hear your priorities, wonderful. i will remember a piece of architect that happens to be in china at the temple of heaven where there is indeed a wall which does exactly this, and it is amazing experience to all of a sudden walk in a quiet space, and your hearing voices, and you cannot even physically see the sounds. it's just a lovely experience where you are. there is a presence of people there, yet physically not there. he hadians, because you see them tracing celestial patterns, reminds you bringing the history plaza, together with the use of materials connecting us to the infrastructure. i think that just really thought provoking piece and i hope that there's somewhere in this area a little piece so people can read the complexity of what your doing. >> we do have the laudite approach, which is my approach, which is you can read it. i mean i don't use a qr code, but that neighborhood is twirt, it's all of these ver
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 74 (some duplicates have been removed)